Conghaileach
23rd March 2003, 14:49
COMMENT & ANALYSIS:
A bringer of liberty can
soon become an occupier
By Eric Rauchway
Financial Times;
Mar 19, 2003
George W.Bush says American armies come to the Middle East
as liberators, not conquerors; he swears the US has "no
intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new
government" after a war. The Iraqi opposition welcomed
his words, but they should take care. Washington's line
echoes the failed ambitions of past US leaders to invent a
benevolent imperialism. Mr Bush's reputed role model,
William McKinley, sought to distinguish the US from the
colonising nations of Europe by bringing democracy to the
Philippines. Instead he brought terror and mayhem to US
soldiers and Filipinos alike.
Hawks in the McKinley administration believed the world
would benefit from greater US naval power and overseas
influence. In 1898 the USS Maine blew up while at anchor off
the Spanish colony of Cuba. Subsequent investigations found
no link between the explosion and the government of Spain,
but the incident sparked a war that the hawks wanted. The
US paused briefly in its march to vengeance to disavow all
"disposition or intention" of occupying Spain's possessions,
claiming to fight only for their freedom.
After a swift victory the US held Cuba, Puerto Rico and the
Philippine islands, whose proximity to mainland Asia excited
US strategists. Military seers imagined a US version of Hong
Kong in the archipelago. Filipinos would happily host US
military and commercial traffic while serving as an example
of democracy to the region.
Beset by this vision, McKinley overcame his original
intention by inviting divine intervention. "I am not ashamed
to tell you," he declared, "that I went down on my knees and
prayed almighty God for light and guidance." And the Lord
heeded his servant William, telling the president "there was
nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to
educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilise and
Christianise them, and by God's grace do the very
best we could by them as our fellow men for whom
Christ also died". So the US troops remained.
In the wake of Europe's unseemly scramble for colonies in
Africa, the US occupation of the Philippine islands seemed
to its critics like more of the same. But to its
practitioners, American imperialism felt new and exciting.
The US had after all thrown off the yoke of oppression.
It could teach others to do the same.
US armies had come to prove, McKinley declared, that Asians
too might enjoy "that full measure of individual rights and
liberties which is the heritage of free peoples". The US
landed not only marines but schoolteachers on Philippine
shores, bringing textbooks and munitions alike. And indeed,
literacy rates rose. Mortality rates from malaria and
cholera fell. New roads and schools sprang up. So did some
civic institutions, run by Filipinos who welcomed the chance
to govern.
But trouble plagued the new colony from the start. As
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge mildly noted: "Those people whom
we liberated down there have turned against us." An army of
75,000 Filipinos began to fight a guerrilla war against
their benevolent occupiers. The Americans had the advantage
of superior firepower; the rebels enjoyed the privilege of
camouflage that accrues to an occupied people. The
well-armed Americans hunkered in groups while stealthy
guerrillas sowed terror among the coloniser troops - who
then retaliated against the populace at large. This pattern
culminated in an ambush on the American garrison at
Balangiga - the worst massacre of US troops since Custer.
In reply, US forces laid waste to the surrounding country.
News of such terrorism and indiscriminate response brought
the war to a sputtering halt - although US troops stayed in
the islands and rebels remained in the wilderness, as they
do today. The Philippines did not attain independence, let
alone democracy, until 1946.
Mr Bush now cites the democratic postwar reconstruction of
Japan and Germany as precedents. But in 1945 the US ranked
first among equals as peacemakers, leading a co-operative
international project to rebuild shattered opponents. For
the old Axis powers, Americans wrote new constitutions
reflecting international aspirations, including measures
more progressive than US customs. The present effort to keep
other nations at arm's length, promising to bring to Iraq a
uniquely US experience of war and its aftermath, means there
is something old in store for the new axis of enemies.
The writer is associate professor of history
at the University of California, Davis
A bringer of liberty can
soon become an occupier
By Eric Rauchway
Financial Times;
Mar 19, 2003
George W.Bush says American armies come to the Middle East
as liberators, not conquerors; he swears the US has "no
intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new
government" after a war. The Iraqi opposition welcomed
his words, but they should take care. Washington's line
echoes the failed ambitions of past US leaders to invent a
benevolent imperialism. Mr Bush's reputed role model,
William McKinley, sought to distinguish the US from the
colonising nations of Europe by bringing democracy to the
Philippines. Instead he brought terror and mayhem to US
soldiers and Filipinos alike.
Hawks in the McKinley administration believed the world
would benefit from greater US naval power and overseas
influence. In 1898 the USS Maine blew up while at anchor off
the Spanish colony of Cuba. Subsequent investigations found
no link between the explosion and the government of Spain,
but the incident sparked a war that the hawks wanted. The
US paused briefly in its march to vengeance to disavow all
"disposition or intention" of occupying Spain's possessions,
claiming to fight only for their freedom.
After a swift victory the US held Cuba, Puerto Rico and the
Philippine islands, whose proximity to mainland Asia excited
US strategists. Military seers imagined a US version of Hong
Kong in the archipelago. Filipinos would happily host US
military and commercial traffic while serving as an example
of democracy to the region.
Beset by this vision, McKinley overcame his original
intention by inviting divine intervention. "I am not ashamed
to tell you," he declared, "that I went down on my knees and
prayed almighty God for light and guidance." And the Lord
heeded his servant William, telling the president "there was
nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to
educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilise and
Christianise them, and by God's grace do the very
best we could by them as our fellow men for whom
Christ also died". So the US troops remained.
In the wake of Europe's unseemly scramble for colonies in
Africa, the US occupation of the Philippine islands seemed
to its critics like more of the same. But to its
practitioners, American imperialism felt new and exciting.
The US had after all thrown off the yoke of oppression.
It could teach others to do the same.
US armies had come to prove, McKinley declared, that Asians
too might enjoy "that full measure of individual rights and
liberties which is the heritage of free peoples". The US
landed not only marines but schoolteachers on Philippine
shores, bringing textbooks and munitions alike. And indeed,
literacy rates rose. Mortality rates from malaria and
cholera fell. New roads and schools sprang up. So did some
civic institutions, run by Filipinos who welcomed the chance
to govern.
But trouble plagued the new colony from the start. As
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge mildly noted: "Those people whom
we liberated down there have turned against us." An army of
75,000 Filipinos began to fight a guerrilla war against
their benevolent occupiers. The Americans had the advantage
of superior firepower; the rebels enjoyed the privilege of
camouflage that accrues to an occupied people. The
well-armed Americans hunkered in groups while stealthy
guerrillas sowed terror among the coloniser troops - who
then retaliated against the populace at large. This pattern
culminated in an ambush on the American garrison at
Balangiga - the worst massacre of US troops since Custer.
In reply, US forces laid waste to the surrounding country.
News of such terrorism and indiscriminate response brought
the war to a sputtering halt - although US troops stayed in
the islands and rebels remained in the wilderness, as they
do today. The Philippines did not attain independence, let
alone democracy, until 1946.
Mr Bush now cites the democratic postwar reconstruction of
Japan and Germany as precedents. But in 1945 the US ranked
first among equals as peacemakers, leading a co-operative
international project to rebuild shattered opponents. For
the old Axis powers, Americans wrote new constitutions
reflecting international aspirations, including measures
more progressive than US customs. The present effort to keep
other nations at arm's length, promising to bring to Iraq a
uniquely US experience of war and its aftermath, means there
is something old in store for the new axis of enemies.
The writer is associate professor of history
at the University of California, Davis